Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Mulready Cautions Ruling Not Enough

Rep. Glen Mulready today praised the court ruling that declared a provision of the federal health care law unconstitutional, but cautioned that it would not be enough.

“Having worked for 27 years in the insurance industry, I have been acutely aware of the many problems inherent in the new federal health care law,” Mulready, R-Tulsa, said.

“Though I am pleased to see a federal court recognize that the insurance mandate clearly violates the U.S. Constitution, I believe that the legislation does quite a bit of harm even without it and must be fully repealed.”

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the government cannot require people to buy insurance, declaring that provision of the new federal health care law to be unconstitutional.

The case is expected to be appealed and eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mulready said the new law was created in a way that its many components work together and so could be more dangerous if only parts of it are kept.

“Though I don’t think the new law works at all, I think it could even do more damage if only this one part – the insurance mandate – goes,” Mulready said. “The ruling was certainly a victory, but we must not let it make us complacent to the consequences of the rest of the law. If only this piece is removed, it may lead us more quickly to that which we are trying to avoid – government takeover of our health care system.”

Mulready has spent 27 years in the insurance industry. He has served as an executive with Oklahoma’s two largest health insurers and as a broker/consultant for companies trying to maximize their benefit dollars.

Mulready has also served on numerous state task forces in the health insurance and health care arena. “Judge Hudson’s ruling was a move in the right direction, we just need to ensure that we continue our efforts in that direction,” Mulready said.

Share |